Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

A study of the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility

and price image on retailer personality and consumers0 reactions
(satisfaction, trust and loyalty to the retailer)
Cindy Lombart a,n, Didier Louis b
a

Audencia Nantes, School of Management (Audencia PRES LUNAM), Research Center in Marketing & Distribution In Situ, 8 Route de la Jonelire,
BP 31222, 44312 Nantes Cedex 3, France
b
IUT de Saint-Nazaire, LEMNA, 58 Rue Michel-Ange, BP 420, 44600 Saint Nazaire, France

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 15 April 2013
Accepted 30 November 2013
Available online 20 January 2014

This study investigates the impact of a retailer0 s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy and its price
image on retailer personality, along with the impact of these two variables on the consequences of
retailer personality: consumers0 satisfaction, trust and loyalty toward the retailer (measured by their
attitude and future behavioral intentions). Data were collected on a convenience sample of 352
consumers of a French grocery retailer. Using Partial Least Squares analysis (PLS), we show that
perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and price image have a signicant positive/negative inuence
on retailer personality traits (agreeableness and conscientiousness/disingenuousness) and that
Corporate Social Responsibility has also a signicant positive inuence on the sophistication
personality trait. For the consequences examined (satisfaction, trust and loyalty to the retailer), we
show that Corporate Social Responsibility, price image and retailer personality have a direct or indirect
impact on these dependent variables.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words:
Retailer personality
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Price image
Consumer satisfaction
Consumer trust
Consumer loyalty

1. Introduction
By acquiring notoriety, a strong image and hence signicant brand equity, retailers have become full-edged brands
(Achenbaum and Bogda, 1997). From both a theoretical standpoint
and that of various retail market actors (distributors, consumers
and manufacturers), retailers have become brands that convey
messages, promises and value (Fleck and Nabec, 2010). Zentes
et al. (2008) dene the retail brand as a group of the retailer0 s
outlets which carry a unique name, symbol, logo or combination
thereof. It is crucial for retailers to possess powerful brands that
can help them thrive in their often highly competitive market
(Henderson and Mihas, 2000). The retail brand strongly inuences
consumers0 perceptions and guides their choices, and builds their
loyalty to the retailer and its points of sale, in a relationship
established between the retailer and its customers (Ailawadi and
Keller, 2004). The retailer, like the brand, is a milestone, a source of
benets and a vector of a preferred attitudinal and behavioral
relationship between consumer and retailer (Fleck and Nabec,
2010).

In France, food retailers suffer from poor consumer condence

(58%) at two main levels: price image and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR)1 policy. Nonetheless, these retailers have
recently intensied their efforts to integrate CSR in their analyses
and actions, either driven by the market, the competition and their
executives, or to reduce costs (Binninger, 2010). If price remains a
major element of food retailers0 strategy, it is no longer a sufcient
differentiation factor, in a context where gaps between retailers0
price images are constantly shrinking.2 Retailers are thus seeking
to develop or reinforce their image of being a responsible company
while preserving their price image to better position themselves
and meet the expectations of the consumers, who, in the current
economic and ecological crises, are seeking both low prices and
more responsible consumption modes.3
The main objective of this study is therefore to examine the
inuence of the retailer0 s CSR policy and price image on its
personality. The inuence of these two variables on the consequences of retailer personality consumer satisfaction, trust and
loyalty to the retailer (measured by their attitude and future
behavioral intentions) is also analyzed. This study will thus
1

LSA (a magazine for professionals in France), no. 2205 (17/11/2011), pp. 1215.
Points de Vente (a magazine for professionals in France), no. 1110 (5/3/2012),
pp. 22.
3
Marketing Magazine (a magazine for professionals in France), no. 152 (01/10/
2011), pp. 3437.
2

Corresponding author. Tel.: 33 2 40 37 34 40; fax: 33 2 40 37 34 07.

E-mail addresses: clombart@audencia.com (C. Lombart),
didier.louis@univ-nantes.fr (D. Louis).
0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.11.009

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

supplement current research, mainly qualitative, on the antecedents of brand personality (Brengman and Willems, 2009) along
with studies of the consequences of price image (Zielke, 2006,
2010). Whereas Corporate Social Responsibility has been investigated extensively, mainly regarding its inuence on consumers
(e.g., Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006; Stanaland et al., 2011; Herault,
2012), few studies have specically looked at the consequences of
price image. The remainder of the article is structured as follows.
The rst section discusses retailer personality and presents the
model and hypotheses. The methodology used is then described
and the results presented. The limitations of the study are noted
and future research avenues are proposed.

2. Retailer personality
Retailer personality is often dened with reference to brand
personality. Aaker (1997) was the rst to conceptualize brand
personality as the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand. This seminal denition nonetheless includes other characteristics (e.g., sociodemographic, such as age, gender and social
class) in addition to personality. Consequently, new denitions of
brand personality have been proposed.
Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) dene brand personality as
the unique set of human personality traits both applicable and relevant
to brands. Based on this denition, Geuens et al. (2009) developed a
12-item scale to measure brand personality. This reliable and valid
instrument comprises of four positive traits (activity, responsibility,
simplicity and emotionality) and one negative trait (aggressiveness).
Similarly, Ferrandi and Valette-Florence (2002) conceptualize
brand personality as the set of human personality traits associated
with a brand. Referring to this denition, Ambroise and ValetteFlorence (2010) developed a reliable and valid 23-item scale to
measure brand personality, comprising six positive traits (congeniality, creativity, seduction, preciousness, originality and conscientiousness) and three negative traits (dominance, deceitfulness and
introversion).
Ambroise and Valette-Florence (2010) also proposed a secondlevel structure on which nine traits are grouped into ve secondorder factors. The ve principal traits are agreeableness (which
includes the traits of congeniality, creativity, and seduction),
sophistication (which includes preciousness and originality), conscientiousness, disingenuousness (which includes dominance and
deceitfulness) and introversion. This measurement scale, developed specically for the French semantic and cultural context in
which the present study is conducted, will be used to measure
retailer personality. In line with the denitions of brand personality presented above, retailer personality is dened as the set of
human personality traits associated with a retailer.
Adaptation to retailers of the concepts developed in the eld of
brands (e.g. personality) owes much to Ailawadi and Keller (2004),
who recommend that marketing researchers apply to retailers the
principles related to brands and their management. Brands and

retailers indeed share many similarities in terms of signs used to

recognize them, functions lled for clients and mix (marketing
mix for manufacturers and retailing mix for distributors). More
generally, the association of the human personality with objects
that are not human, such as brands or retailers, refers to the theory
of anthropomorphism or the tendency to imbue the real or
imagined behavior of nonhuman agents with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, or emotions (Epley et al., 2007).
Following their theoretical investigation of social psychology
research, Freling and Forbes (2005) assert that anthropomorphism
is a natural and inevitable human tendency that inltrates the
daily thoughts and actions of most individuals and inuences
people0 s perceptions and responses throughout their lifetime.
Humans thus need to anthropomorphize objects, especially those
with which they interact frequently, to give more meaning to the
world in which they live and to grasp it more easily (Waytz et al.,
2010).

3. Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

The model proposed in this study (Fig. 1) primarily considers
the relations between two antecedents of retailer personality:
retailers0 CSR policy and price image. Links between retailer
personality and the consequences of this concept (consumer
satisfaction, trust and loyalty to the retailer) are incorporated in
the model. Lastly, links between the retailer0 s CSR policy and price
image and the consequences of retailer personality are integrated.
These relations are discussed below.

3.1. Antecedents of retailer personality: CSR policy and price image

To date, few studies have looked at the antecedents of retailer
personality. A notable exception is Brengman and Willems (2009),
who sought to identify the determinants of fashion store personality. In an exploratory qualitative study, they identied ve main
types of antecedents: (1) the environment of points of sale (i.e.
ambiance, design, other customers and salespeople present in
stores); (2) merchandise offered (price, quality, assortment and
style); (3) retailer0 s reputation (including advertising by the store,
CSR policy, word-of-mouth from customers and their attitude
toward the retailer); (4) services offered; and (5) store0 s format
and location. Based on ve retailer personality traits (sophistication, solidity, genuineness, enthusiasm, and unpleasantness) proposed by d0 Astous and Lvesque (2003), Brengman and Willems
(2009) observed that the environment of points of sale (mainly
design) is a particularly important factor in creating retailer
personality because it strongly inuences the ve personality
traits considered. The next strongest inuence is sales staff,
price and quality of merchandise, services offered and retailer0 s
CSR policy. Specically, Brengman and Willems (2009) asserted
that the retailer0 s CSR policy inuences the personality trait

H5 a, b, c, d

Attitude

CSR

H4e
Trust

H1

H2
Price image

H4f

H3 a, b, c, d

Retailer
personality

631

H4d

H4a
H4b

Satisfaction
H6 a, b, c, d

Fig. 1. Model proposed.

H4c

Future behavioral
intentions

632

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

genuineness4 and that perceived prices affect the personality traits

genuineness, sophistication and solidity.
Given the work of Brengman and Willems (2009), we posit
that:

H1. The retailer0 s CSR policy has a positive inuence on the

retailer personality traits agreeableness, sophistication and conscientiousness, and a negative inuence on the traits disingenuousness and introversion.
Numerous denitions of CSR have been proposed in the
literature but none has received unanimous support. Most of the
denitions rest on two main ideas: (1) companies must be lawabiding and prot-seeking, but their responsibilities extend
beyond the legal and economic spheres; (2) companies are
responsible to all stakeholders of their activities, not only shareholders. CSR can thus be dened as a company0 s commitment to
minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its
long-run benecial impact on society (Mohr et al., 2001). It is
generally acknowledged that CSR is a multidimensional construct
(Rowley and Berman, 2000). However, several typologies coexist
and the number of dimensions varies. Carroll (1979) distinguished
four dimensions: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Sen
and Bhattacharya (2001) studied CSR activities of 600 companies
and note six dimensions: community support, diversity, employee
support, environment, non-U.S. operations and products. In a
French-speaking context, Swaen and Chumpitaz (2008) highlighted four dimensions of corporate CSR policy: respect for the
environment, respect for consumers, respect for employees and
philanthropic activities put in place.
Further, we extend the work of Brengman and Willems (2009),
who integrated consumers0 price perceptions in their analysis. We
thus posit that:

H2. The retailer0 s price image has a positive inuence on the

retailer personality traits agreeableness, sophistication and conscientiousness, and a negative inuence on the traits disingenuousness and introversion.
Price image rests on the perception of rational elements,
mainly prices and price promotions offered, communications by
the retailer and its stores along these two lines, and assortment
offered (types (i.e., national and/or store brands) and number of
brands). Nonetheless, price image may also result from the
perception of affective elements such as layout of the point of
sale (ambiance, design, etc.) and communication by the retailer
and its stores (POS ads and promotions, prospectus, etc.) (Zielke,
2006; Fady et al., 2008; Ngobo and Pantin-Sohier, 2009; Ngobo
and Jean, 2012). Price image is generally dened as a global
representation of the relative level of prices at a point of sale that
can lead to categorization of retailers as expensive or inexpensive
(Fady et al., 2008). Individuals infer their own price image of the
retailer based on their perceptions of price levels of the points of
sale of a retailer that they know or frequent, relative to prices of
other points of sale and competing retailers in the same trade area.
By specically considering the retailer0 s price image and by
studying the link between this variable and brand personality,
the present study builds on previous research that indirectly
examined the impact of this variable on retailer personality via
prices perceived by consumers.

4
In this study, the trait genuineness proposed by Brengman and Willems
(2009) will be measured by the deceitfulness (the opposite) and conscientiousness
personality traits proposed by Ambroise and Valette-Florence (2010).

3.2. Consequences of retailer personality: consumer satisfaction,

trust and loyalty to the retailer
Several authors have examined the consequences of retailer
personality. Lombart and Louis (2012b) demonstrated the positive
and signicant inuence of four retailer personality traits (congeniality, originality, conscientiousness and preciousness) on
consumer satisfaction with the retailer. Consequently, we posit that:
H3a. The retailer personality traits agreeableness, sophistication
and conscientiousness have a positive inuence on consumers0
satisfaction with the retailer, whereas the traits disingenuousness
and introversion have a negative inuence on this variable.
Gouteron (2006) demonstrated the signicant positive inuence
of two retailer personality traits (autonomy and sincerity) on credibility and integrity, two facets of trust in the retailer. Trust, which is a
psychological variable, reects a set of cumulative presumptions
(Aurier and N0 Goala, 2010) regarding the credibility, integrity and
benevolence that consumers attribute to a retailer (Gurviez and
Korchia, 2002). A retailer is credible if it can attain the performance
its consumers expect. It exhibits integrity if it fullls its promises
concerning the terms of trade and if its discourse is considered
honest. Lastly, the retailer is benevolent if it is sustainably perceived
as considering consumers0 interests. Lombart and Louis (2012a)
showed that the personality traits congeniality, originality, preciousness and conscientiousness have a positive and signicant impact on
these three facets of trust in the retailer. The trait seduction also has a
positive and signicant inuence but only on the benevolence facet.
The trait introversion has a signicant negative inuence on the
three facets of trust. Given the ndings of Gouteron (2006) and
Lombart and Louis (2012b), we hypothesize that:
H3b. The retailer personality traits agreeableness, sophistication
and conscientiousness have a positive inuence on consumers0
trust in the retailer, whereas the traits disingenuousness and
introversion have a negative inuence on this variable.
Researchers have also demonstrated the positive and signicant inuence of retailer personality on consumers0 attitude
toward the retailer. Helgeson and Supphellen (2004) found a
positive and signicant inuence of modern and classic retailer
personality traits. Ben Sliman et al. (2005) found an effect of the
trait seduction. Lombart and Louis (2012b) noted the impact of the
traits congeniality and originality, on consumers0 attitude toward
the store. Therefore, we posit that:
H3c. The retailer personality traits agreeableness, sophistication
and conscientiousness have a positive inuence on consumers0
attitude toward the retailer, whereas the traits disingenuousness
and introversion have a negative inuence on this variable.
The positive and signicant impact of retailer personality on
consumer loyalty has been showed by several works (Merrilees
and Miller, 2001; Zentes et al., 2008; Das et al., 2012). Nonetheless,
approaches to loyalty differ (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). The rst is
purely behavioral. This approach nonetheless has limits, including
the lack of consideration of the attitudinal component of loyalty.
This component differentiates inertia (e.g., the regular purchase of
the same brand without having a favorable attitude toward it) from
true loyalty. Consequently, loyalty is explained by consumers0
favorable attitudes toward brands or retailers and is expressed by
their consumption or patronage behavior. Merrilees and Miller
(2001) have shown that the retailer personality trait sincerity has
a positive and signicant inuence on consumers0 loyalty to the
store. Zentes et al. (2008) asserted that the retailer personality traits
competence, sincerity, excitement and sophistication have a positive
and signicant inuence on consumers0 loyalty to a store measured

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

633

by intention to recommend the store. Lastly, Das et al. (2012)

demonstrated that the retailer personality traits sophistication and
dependability have a positive and signicant inuence on consumers0 attitudinal loyalty toward the retailer. Given these ndings,
we hypothesize that:

H4e. Consumers0 attitude toward a retailer has a positive inuence on their future behavioral intentions regarding the retailer.

H3d. The retailer personality traits agreeableness, sophistication

and conscientiousness have a positive inuence on consumers0
future behavioral intentions toward the retailer whereas the traits
disingenuousness and introversion have a negative inuence on
this variable.

3.3. Links between antecedents of retailer personality and their

consequences

In this study, we therefore consider both attitudinal (H3c) and

behavioral (H3d) loyalty, thus supplementing previous work that
often considered only one of these approaches to loyalty. Further,
we are interested in consumers0 future behavioral intentions
toward the store (intention to recommend it or return) and toward
products sold under the store brand (intention to recommend or
(re)buy them), which was not done in prior research in the eld of
retailer personality (Merrilees and Miller, 2001; Zentes et al.,
2008; Das et al., 2012b).
Given that the links between the consequences of retailer
personality examined in this study (satisfaction, trust, attitude and
future behavioral intentions) were suggested by the literature, they
should also be integrated in the model developed in this study.
Aurier and N0 Goala (2010) established positive and signicant
links between, in turn, perceived value, global satisfaction, trust
and commitment, thus forming a relational chain. The authors
argued that consumers0 satisfactory experiences with the services
supplier should reinforce their trust in this supplier. Swaen and
Chumpitaz (2008) also demonstrated a positive and signicant
inuence of satisfaction on credibility and integrity, two facets of
trust. Consumer satisfaction is another important determinant of
loyalty (Oliver, 1997). Many empirical studies reported a positive
and signicant link between consumer satisfaction and behavioral
and/or attitudinal loyalty (e.g. Oliver and Linda, 1981; Taylor and
Baker, 1994; Hallowell, 1996; Magin et al., 2003; Ekinci et al.,
2008). Lastly, since the seminal work of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975),
many authors have afrmed that consumers0 attitude has a
positive and signicant inuence on future behavioral intentions,
which in turn conditions real behavior (e.g. Oliver, 1980; Berger
and Alwitt, 1996; Ekinci et al., 2008). Fournier (1998) maintained
that trust is a determining factor in developing a favorable attitude
toward a brand. The positive and signicant inuence of trust in a
brand on consumer0 s attitude toward the brand has been validated
in several studies (e.g., Okazaki, et al., 2007; Herault, 2012). Trust is
also an antecedent of loyalty. The positive and signicant inuence
of trust on loyalty (measured by future behavioral intentions) has
been demonstrated (e.g., Lin et al., 2011; Stanaland et al., 2011).
Similarly, it has been shown that the more consumers trust in the
store brand, the stronger their intention to buy products (associated with organic agriculture or fair trade) offered by the store
brand (e.g., Pivato et al., 2008; Castaldo et al., 2009).
Given the works reviewed above, we formulated the following
hypotheses:
H4a. Consumers satisfaction with a retailer has a positive inuence on their trust in the retailer.
0

H4b. Consumers satisfaction with a retailer has a positive inuence on their attitude toward the retailer.
0

H4c. Consumers0 trust in a retailer has a positive inuence on

their attitude toward the retailer.
H4d. Consumers0 satisfaction with a retailer has a positive inuence on their future behavioral intentions toward the retailer.

H4f. Consumers0 trust in a retailer has a positive inuence on their

future behavioral intentions toward the retailer.

Given that the links between antecedents of retailer personality

considered (CSR policy and price image) and the consequences
studied (satisfaction, trust, attitude and future behavioral intentions) were suggested in the literature, they are also included in
the model proposed in this study to form an integrating model of
the antecedents and consequences of retailer personality.
Luo and Bhattacharya (2006) and Matute-Vallejo et al. (2011)
have shown that a company0 s CSR policy has a positive and
signicant impact on consumer satisfaction with the company. In
the specic eld of distribution, Gupta and Pirsch (2008) asserted
that the retailer0 s CSR policy has a positive and signicant
inuence on consumer satisfaction with the retailer. It has been
shown repeatedly that a company0 s CSR policy is an antecedent of
consumers0 trust in the company (Lacey and Kennett-Hensel,
2010; Lin et al., 2011; Stanaland et al., 2011; Herault, 2012).
Specically, Swaen and Chumpitaz (2008) found that a company0 s
CSR policy has a positive and signicant inuence on two facets of
trust: credibility and integrity. In the specic eld of distribution,
Pivato et al. (2008) and Castaldo et al. (2009) asserted that a
company0 s CSR policy has a positive and signicant impact on
trust in organic and fair trade products offered under the store
brand. A company0 s CSR policy also has a positive and signicant
inuence on consumers0 attitude toward the company or the
brands it offers (Mohr and Webb, 2005; Marin et al., 2009; Tian
et al., 2011; Herault, 2012). Lastly, the CSR policy is also a
determinant of consumer loyalty (intention to recommend and
purchase) to the company (Mohr and Webb, 2005; Anselmsson
and Johansson, 2007; Rodrigues et al., 2011; Stanaland et al., 2011;
Tian et al., 2011). In the specic eld of distribution, Gupta and
Pirsch (2008) showed that a retailer0 s CSR policy has a positive and
signicant inuence on consumer loyalty to its stores. SchrammKlein and Zentes (2008) have identied that three out of six
dimensions of a retailer0 s CSR policy (community support,
employee support and non-domestic operations) have a positive
and signicant inuence on consumers0 loyalty to the retailer
(intention to recommend and commitment to the retailer).
Based on these studies, we hypothesize that:
H5a. The retailer0 s CSR policy has a positive inuence on consumers0 satisfaction with the retailer.
H5b. The retailer0 s CSR policy has a positive inuence on consumers0 trust in the retailer.
H5c. The retailer0 s CSR policy has a positive inuence on consumers0 attitude toward the retailer.
H5d. The retailer0 s CSR policy has a positive inuence on consumers0 future behavioral intentions toward the retailer.
Regarding retailers0 price image, although few studies have
investigated the consequences of this concept, Zielke (2006, 2010)
has shown that a retailer0 s price image has a positive and
signicant impact on consumers0 future behavioral intentions,
notably their shopping intentions in its store. The author also
demonstrated that price image is a determinant of consumers0
price attitude (Zielke, 2006). More generally, regarding prices
perceived by consumers, which is a major determinant of price
image (Zielke, 2006; Fady et al., 2008; Ngobo and Pantin-Sohier,

634

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

2009; Ngobo and Jean, 2012), several authors have shown the
inuence of prices on consumer satisfaction (e.g., Voss et al., 1998;
Varki and Colgate, 2001; Iyer and Evanschitzky, 2006) and
consumers0 attitude toward a point of sale (Stan et al., 2007).
Zielke (2008) found that prices perceived by consumers, specically the dimensions price level, price value, price fairness, price
perceptibility, price processibility, special offers, price advertising
and products in the upper price range) inuence consumers0 price
satisfaction, a determinant of the global level of satisfaction
consumers feel (Lymperopoulos and Chaniotakis, 2008). Specically, consumers0 perception of price fairness has a positive and
signicant impact on their level of satisfaction and an indirect
impact on their loyalty via the variables satisfaction and commitment (Matute-Vallejo et al., 2011). Consumers0 perception of price
fairness is also an antecedent of trust (Buttle and Burton, 2002).
Based on studies that examine price image and its consequences directly or indirectly via one of its main antecedents, i.e.
prices perceived by consumers, we formulate the following
hypotheses:
H6a. The retailer0 s price image has a positive inuence on consumers0 satisfaction with the retailer.
H6b. The retailer0 s price image has a positive inuence on consumers0 trust in the retailer.
H6c. The retailer0 s price image has a positive inuence on consumers0 attitude toward the retailer.
H6d. The retailer0 s price image has a positive inuence on consumers0 future behavioral intentions toward the retailer.

The participants in the natural experiment completed two

simulated shopping trips (at t and t 1 week), which enabled
them to form an opinion about the retailer Systme U, its CSR
policy and price image.5 At the beginning of each simulated
shopping trip, participants were asked to read the natural experiment scenario, which invited them to shop at the store laboratory
as they would do at a real store, for one week0 s personal
consumption, or more if they wished. During each simulated
shopping trip they were to consider that near their home there
is a Systme U supermarket that shares the same price policy and
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy as all the supermarkets and hypermarkets belonging to this retailer. The CSR policy
of Systme U was also conveyed to participants in posters afxed
in the store laboratory. Labels in the shelves indicated the price of
each product and the price per kg/liter. After the last purchase,
participants completed a questionnaire on the computer.
The choice of using a store laboratory was motivated by several
reasons:
It would have been difcult to conduct this study (reading of
the scenario, posters hung in the store describing the retailer0 s
CSR policy, etc.) in a real store without disrupting normal
operations.
The store laboratory allows a faithful reproduction of the
purchasing act environment (shelves, POS information, baskets,
cash registers, etc.).
It offers a real reconstruction of the natural conditions of
shopping at a point of sale (movement through the store,
possibility of physically handling products, etc.).
It allows complete control over the information gathering
conditions.

4. Methodology
4.1. Retailer studied
Systme U is a French cooperative of food retail merchants. In
early 2012, the retailer0 s market share (in value) was 10.1% (for
hypermarket and supermarket), positioning it behind the retailers
Carrefour, Leclerc and Intermarch. In terms of price image,
Systme U is situated behind Leclerc, which has highlighted its
low price image in its institutional communication for several
years. Systme U also has a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
policy via its commitments to improve the environmental quality
of its offering (organic products and ecological cleaning products),
store design (efcient in terms of natural resources and energy),
and reduction and recycling of waste in its stores (treatment and
recovery of plastic). Via its stores, this retailer also forms preferred
partnerships with local authorities (e.g., by sponsoring local sports
clubs) and favors local and regional products in its stores by establishing preferred relationships with SME (e.g., with Produits d0 Ici (local
products)). It also supports humanitarian actions (e.g., with Action
Contre la Faim (an anti-hunger association)).
4.2. Sample
The study was conducted on a convenience sample of 352
individuals, ages 2025, within a store laboratory. This store is an
exact replica of several food shelves (pasta and rice, fruit juice) and
hygiene (shower products and shampoo) of a Systme U supermarket. In addition, two shelves were dedicated to products
(preserved vegetables, soups, pasta, biscuits, fruit juice, jams,
etc.) that bore an organic agriculture label (French and/or
European), under the store brand. Another shelf was dedicated
to ecological cleaning products (laundry products, housecleaning,
dishwashing liquids, paper towels, etc.) that bore the European
ecolabel, under the store brand.

4.3. Measurement scales used

Consumers0 perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
were measured by a scale developed by Swaen and Chumpitaz
(2008). Three facets of the scale were emphasized: respect for the
environment (four items), respect for consumers (three items) and
philanthropic activities (three items). Respect for employees was
not measured in this study because the commitments of the retailer
studied pertained very little to this facet of CSR. Consumers0
perceptions of retailer price image were measured by four ad hoc
items inspired by Zielke (2010) and Ngobo and Jean (2012).
Consumers0 perceptions of retailer personality were measured
by a brand personality measurement scale developed by Ambroise
and Valette-Florence (2010), which included 9 traits, measured by
23 items, and grouped into ve second-order factors: introversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, sophistication and disingenuousness. Ambroise and Valette-Florence applied this scale to 39
brands belonging to distinct product categories, including eight
retailers (Leclerc, Carrefour, Burton, Diesel, Gap, Kiabi, Zara and
Marlboro Classics).
Consumers0 satisfaction with the retailer was measured by
three items proposed by Oliver (1980). Consumers0 trust in the
retailer was measured using eight items from the scale developed
by Gurviez and Korchia (2002). This trust scale includes three
facets: credibility (three items), integrity (three items) and
5
For the rst simulated shopping trip (at t): range of spending (minimum 3.91; maximum 33.17; mean 12.49) and number of items (minimum 2;
maximum 15; mean 6.84). For the second simulated shopping trip (at t 1
week): range of spending (minimum 2.13; maximum 33,94; mean 11.56) and
number of items (minimum 2; maximum 16; mean 6.49). The impact of these
purchase data (number of items purchased and spending) on loyalty (attitudinal
and behavioral) is never signicant.

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

635

Table 1
Links between rst-order and second-order factors.
Path coefcients

t-value

Respect for the environmentCorporate social responsibility

Respect for consumersCorporate social responsibility
Philanthropic activitiesCorporate social responsibility

0.874
0.828
0.801

33.692**
27.635**
25.026**

CongenialityAgreeableness
SeductionAgreeableness
CreativityAgreeableness

0.842
0.746
0.836

29.169**
20.931**
28.495**

OriginalitySophistication
PreciousnessSophistication

0.932
0.920

48.213**
43.770**

DeceitfulnessDisingenuousness
DominanceDisingenuousness

0.957
0.947

61.593**
55.212**

CredibilityTrust
IntegrityTrust
BenevolenceTrust

0.868
0.916
0.796

32.694**
42.628**
24.644**

Toward the storeFuture behavioral intentions

Toward the store brandFuture behavioral intentions

0.912
0.927

41.464**
46.088**

p o 0.05.
nn

p o0.01.

benevolence (two items). Consumers0 attitude toward the retailer

was measured using four items inspired by Spears and Singh
(2004).
For each item on these measurement scales, consumers were
asked to indicate their degree of agreement on a ve-point Likert
scale ranging from disagree completely to agree completely.
Consumers0 future behavioral intentions toward the retailer
were measured using two facets of two items each. Whereas the
rst focused on future behavioral intentions toward the retailer0 s
stores (two items on intentions to revisit and recommend the
stores), the second concerned future behavioral intentions
towards the store brand products (two items on intentions to
(re)buy and recommend these products). For each of the items of
these two facets, consumers had to indicate a level of probability
on a ve-point likelihood scale ranging from very improbable to
very probable.

5. Results
5.1. Test of measurement model
Before testing the model proposed in this study using structural equations modeling (SEM), conrmatory factor analysis was
performed on the data collected using the partial least squares
method (PLS6) with a bootstrap procedure7 (200 iterations)
(Tenenhaus et al., 2005). In line with the literature, second-order
factors were posited for Corporate Social Responsibility (Swaen
and Chumpitaz, 2008), retailer personality (Ambroise and ValetteFlorence, 2010), trust (Gurviez and Korchia, 2002) and future
behavioral intentions (Soyoung and Byoungho, 2001) (Table 1).
Factor loadings above 0.50 and statistically signicant at 1%
were satisfactory (Table 2). The Jreskog0 s Rh (1971) coefcient
was then used to evaluate the reliability (internal coherence) of
6

The software used is XLSTAT-PLSPM.

According to Hair et al. (2011), PLS-SEM does not presume that the data are
normally distributed. Consequently, PLS applies nonparametric bootstrapping (Davison
and Hinkley, 1997; Efron and Tibshirani, 1993), which involves repeated random
sampling with replacement from the original sample to create a bootstrap sample, to
obtain standard errors for hypothesis testing. The process assumes that the sample
distribution is a reasonable representation of the intended population distribution. The
bootstrap sample enables the estimated coefcients in PLS-SEM to be tested for their
signicance (Henseler and Chin, 2010).
7

the measurement tools used. The coefcients calculated were

satisfactory because they were greater than or equal to 0.70, for
both rst-order and second-order factors. Finally, the approach
proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) was used to establish the
convergent and discriminant validity of the rst-order and
second-order structures posited. Because the latent variables each
share more than 50% of the variance with their measures,
convergent validity was established. Discriminant validity was
also established, because the latent variables each shared more
variance with their items than with the other latent variables
(Table 3).
5.2. Test of the structural model and research hypotheses
Following the satisfactory test of the measurement model, the
model proposed in Fig. 1 was tested with PLS and a bootstrap
procedure (200 iterations). Indices of t for the external GoF
(measuring the performance of the measurement model) and
internal GoF (measuring the performance of the structural model)
were 0.998 and 0.867 respectively. The closer these indices are
to 1, the better the t. The measurement and structural models
proposed are therefore satisfactory. Examination of the values of
the parameters and their degree of signicance illustrates the
direct causal relationships between the constructs measured
(Table 4).
The structural model indicates that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has a positive and signicant inuence on three
retailer personality traits studied: agreeableness (Path Coefcient
(PC) 0.286, t5.431, p o0.01) conscientiousness (PC 0.249,
t4.798, po 0.01) and sophistication (PC0.162, t3.065,
po 0.01). It also has a signicant negative inuence on the trait
disingenuousness (PC 0.187, t 3.450, p o0.01). In contrast,
CSR has no impact on the personality trait introversion. Hypothesis H1 is therefore partly supported by our data. Price image also
has a positive and signicant inuence on the personality traits
agreeableness (PC 0.133, t2.529, p o0.05) and conscientiousness (PC 0.221, t 4.250, p o0.01) and a signicant negative
inuence on the trait disingenuousness (PC 0.137, t 2.530,
po 0.01). However, price image has no impact on the personality
trait introversion. Hypothesis H2 is therefore partly supported by
our data. This research thus validates the results of the exploratory
qualitative study by Brengman and Willems (2009), which specically examined the determinants of retailer personality. CSR and

636

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

Table 2
Results of conrmatory analysis.
Second-order
variables

First-order variables

Items

Loadings

t-value

Corporate social
responsibility
(0.947) (The
numbers
between
brackets are
the Jreskog
coefcients)

Respect for the

environment (0.874)

Reduce its consumption of natural resources or

energies
Make the distribution of the products to its
stores more environmentally friendly
Make its store brand products as ecological as
possible
Make its store as ecological as possible

0.688

11.696nn

0.852

18.203nn

0.793

17.092nn

0.847

19.970nn

Agreeableness
(0.952)

Sophistication
(0.942)

Disingenuousness (0.953)

Look after consumers rights (in terms of

information. guarantees. after-sales service.)
Treat consumers fairly
Provide consumers with accurate
information about the store brand products0
composition

0.758

14.704nn

0.790
0.817

13.913nn
14.458nn

Philanthropic activities
(0.859)

Support local or regional authorities

Support social. cultural and/or sports activities
Support a humanitarian cause

0.821
0.851
0.782

14.832nn
19.326nn
15.881nn

Price image (0.851)

I am certain to nd particularly attractive prices

in this store
I can control my spending in this store
I think that this store makes important efforts
to offer me attractive prices
In this store, I found that the prices were rather
expensive (reverse scored)

0.864

18.685nn

0.739
0.785

13.703nn
15.673nn

0.671

12.536nn

Respect for consumers

(0.831)

Introversion (0.871)

Reserved
Shy

0.862
0.894

23.539nn
22.924nn

Congeniality (0.880)

Endearing
Pleasant
Friendly

0.856
0.842
0.828

14.490nn
19.892nn
17.663nn

Seduction (0.915)

Charming
Seductive

0.915
0.922

22.506nn
21.798nn

Creativity (0.835)

Resourceful
Creative
Imaginative

0.675
0.863
0.831

10.623nn
17.652nn
17.142nn

Conscientiousness (0.843)

Organized
Meticulous
Serious

0.789
0.866
0.745

13.727nn
14.874nn
13.658nn

Originality (0.872)

Trendy
Modern

0.880
0.879

21.717nn
21.152nn

Preciousness (0.907)

Classy
Stylish

0.899
0.923

21.998nn
18.058nn

Deceitfulness (0.926)

Hypocritical
Lying
Deceitful

0.892
0.908
0.893

14.356nn
18.443nn
17.745nn

Dominance (0.894)

Parvenu
Arrogant
Pretentious
I am satised with this retailer
I think that frequenting this retailer0 s stores is a
good idea
I think that frequenting this retailer0 s stores is a
good choice

0.820
0.882
0.874
0.842
0.900

10.412nn
17.679nn
18.762nn
17.805nn
22.714nn

0.910

21.359nn

I think that to shop in the stores of this retailer

brings me safety
I trust this retailer
I consider that to shop in the stores of this
retailer is a guarantee

0.816

13.877nn

0.787
0.844

14.744nn
19.601nn

0.891

17.679nn

0.849

17.526nn

0.835

15.586nn

Satisfaction with the retailer (0.915)

Trust in the
retailer (0.954)

Credibility (0.857)

Integrity (0.894)

I think that this retailer is sincere towards its

consumers
I believe that this retailer is honest towards its
consumers
I think that this retailer is interested in its
consumers

637

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

Table 2 (continued )
Benevolence (0.873)

Attitude toward the retailer (0.932)

Future behavioral
intentions
(0.937)

Toward the store (0.866)

Toward the store brand

(0.898)

This retailer regularly renews itself to meet the

needs of its customers
I think that this retailer tries to meet the
expectations of its customers on an ongoing
basis

0.910

20.243nn

0.849

16.040nn

This retailer is good

This retailer is pleasant
This is a retailer that I like
This is a retailer toward which I have a
favorable attitude

0.862
0.846
0.905
0.907

16.753nn
20.048nn
20.023nn
20.355nn

0.843

20.800nn

0.904

22.458nn

0.889

25.425nn

0.915

23.733nn

What is the probability that

you will recommend the retailer0 s stores to
your friends and/or family?
you will visit stores belonging to this retailer
again?
you will recommend the retailer0 s store
brand products to your friends and/or family?
you will buy store brand products offered by
this retailer (again)?

po 0.05.
nn

p o0.01.

price image explain 12.2%, 14.4%, 2.6% and 6.9% respectively of the
variation of the variables agreeableness, conscientiousness,
sophistication and disingenuousness. These results indicate that
other determinants of retailer personality should be considered
to increase the percentage of variance explained for each
personality trait.
Regarding consequences, the structural model indicates that
the personality trait agreeableness (PC0.346, t7.852, p o0.01),
price image (PC0.325, t 7.476, p o0.01) and CSR (PC 0.156,
t 3.426, po 0.01) have a positive and signicant inuence on
consumers0 satisfaction with the retailer, whereas the trait disingenuousness has a negative and signicant inuence on this
variable (PC 0.197, t 4.610, po0.01). The personality traits
examined, price image and CSR collectively explain 43.1% of the
variation of the variable satisfaction. These results therefore partly
support hypothesis H3a regarding the inuence of ve retailer
personality traits on consumer satisfaction with the retailer, and
conrm the ndings of Lombart and Louis (2012b). Hypothesis H5a,
pertaining to the inuence of CSR on satisfaction, is validated and
thus corroborates Gupta and Pirsch0 s (2008) ndings in the specic
eld of distribution. Hypothesis H6a, regarding the inuence of price
image on consumer satisfaction, is also validated. This research thus
supplement the previous works that mainly considered the link
between prices perceived by consumers and their level of satisfaction (e.g., Voss et al., 1998; Varki and Colgate, 2001; Iyer and
Evanschitzky, 2006; Zielke, 2008) by establishing a link between
price image and consumer satisfaction.
The structural model also indicates that satisfaction (PC 0.482,
t 12.218, p o0.01), CSR (PC 0.360, t9.261, po 0.01) and the
retailer personality traits sophistication (PC 0.132, t 3.592,
p o0.01) and introversion (0.089, t 2.494, po 0.05) have a
positive and signicant inuence on consumers0 trust in the
retailer. These variables collectively explain 57% of the variation
of the variable trust. The results therefore partly validate hypothesis H3b, concerning the inuence of ve retailer personality traits
on consumers0 trust in the retailer, and corroborates the ndings
of Gouteron (2006) and Lombart and Louis (2012b). Further, the
personality trait introversion has a positive inuence on trust,
whereas we have postulated a negative inuence. In other words,
the more a retailer is perceived by consumers as being reserved

and timid, the more consumers will trust in the retailer. Hypothesis H5b, regarding the inuence of CSR on consumer trust, is
validated and thus conrms the many works that afrm this link
(Lacey and Kennett-Hensel, 2010; Lin et al., 2011; Stanaland et al.,
2011; Herault, 2012). Hypothesis H6b, regarding the inuence of
price image on consumers0 trust, is not validated. The retailer price
image therefore has no impact on consumers0 trust in the retailer.
Only consumers0 perception of price fairness seems to be an
antecedent of trust (Buttle and Burton, 2002). Lastly, Hypothesis
H4a is supported by our data. As noted by Aurier and N0 Goala
(2010) and Swaen and Chumpitaz (2008), satisfaction is a determinant of trust. In the present study, consumers0 satisfaction with
a retailer is the variable that best explains trust in the retailer.
The structural model indicates that satisfaction (PC 0.765,
t23.251, po 0.01), the personality trait sophistication (PC
0.088, t 3.436, p o0.01), CSR (PC 0.101, t 3.357, p o0.01) and
trust (0.072, t 1.969, p o0.05) have a positive and signicant
inuence on consumers0 attitude toward the retailer. These variables collectively explain 79.3% of the variation of the variable
attitude. The results therefore partly validate hypothesis H3c,
regarding the inuence of ve retailer personality traits on
consumers0 attitude toward the retailer, and conrm the ndings
of Helgeson and Supphellen (2004), Ben Sliman et al. (2005) and
Lombart and Louis (2012b). Hypothesis H5c, regarding the inuence of CSR on consumers0 attitude, is validated, corroborating the
works that have established this link (Mohr and Webb, 2005;
Marin et al., 2009; Tian et al., 2011; Herault, 2012). Hypothesis
H6c, positing the inuence of price image on consumers0 attitude,
was refuted. Retailer0 s price image therefore does not affect
consumers0 attitude toward the retailer. Only prices perceived by
consumers seem to affect their attitude toward a point of sale
(Stan, Calciu and Jakobowicz, 2007). Lastly, hypotheses H4b and
H4c, addressing the inuence of satisfaction and trust on consumers0 attitude toward the retailer, are validated. Satisfaction is
the variable with the most explanatory power regarding attitude.
The structural model implies that attitude (PC 0.449, t 6.795,
po 0.01), satisfaction (PC 0.390, t5.939, p o0.01) and the
personality traits sophistication (PC 0.122, t3.516, po 0.01)
and conscientiousness (PC0.116, t 3.248, p o0.01) have a positive and signicant inuence on consumers0 future behavioral

638

Table 3
Average variances extracted and bivariate correlations.
1

10

11

12

13

14

0.636
0.401
0.249
0.060
0.002
0.073
0.069
0.010
0.078
0.077
0.029
0.032
0.018
0.028
0.038
0.014
0.102
0.239
0.147
0.215
0.181
0.136
0.081
0.083
0.056

0.633
0.622
0.263
0.121
0.001
0.071
0.091
0.004
0.065
0.116
0.015
0.019
0.007
0.062
0.077
0.037
0.210
0.356
0.209
0.342
0.254
0.238
0.166
0.170
0.116

0.499
0.513
0.669
0.020
0.002
0.068
0.075
0.007
0.067
0.034
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.029
0.028
0.024
0.074
0.153
0.101
0.118
0.133
0.121
0.112
0.123
0.073

0.279
0.245
0.348
0.141
0.590
0.002
0.044
0.070
0.003
0.028
0.083
0.018
0.034
0.003
0.038
0.039
0.029
0.233
0.105
0.068
0.099
0.066
0.132
0.083
0.079
0.064

0.045
0.045
0.032
0.045
0.045
0.772
0.001
0.007
0.021
0.003
0.000
0.018
0.024
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.007
0.000
0.007
0.013
0.010
0.011

0.318
0.270
0.266
0.261
0.210
0.032
0.713

0.330
0.263
0.302
0.274
0.265
0.084

0.100
0.100
0.063
0.084
0.055
0.145

0.318
0.279
0.255
0.259
0.167
0.055

0.709
0.192
0.282
0.200
0.304
0.268
0.254
0.013
0.015
0.009
0.274
0.220
0.204
0.145
0.150
0.331
0.212
0.202
0.161

0.438
0.843
0.233
0.040
0.331
0.267
0.302
0.094
0.075
0.097
0.048
0.054
0.058
0.025
0.044
0.059
0.067
0.050
0.062

0.531
0.483
0.630
0.154
0.246
0.239
0.183
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.092
0.128
0.101
0.082
0.113
0.112
0.083
0.061
0.080

0.311
0.277
0.341
0.184
0.288
0.000
0.438
0.447
0.200
0.392
0.643
0.142
0.168
0.081
0.013
0.011
0.013
0.146
0.107
0.066
0.088
0.092
0.133
0.059
0.068
0.036

0.161
0.170
0.122
0.105
0.134
0.134
0.664
0.551
0.575
0.496
0.377
0.802

0.170
0.179
0.138
0.100
0.184
0.155
0.625
0.518
0.517
0.489
0.410

0.126
0.134
0.084
0.089
0.055
0.089
0.604
0.504
0.550
0.428
0.285

0.642

0.078
0.002
0.101
0.109
0.010
0.101
0.097
0.026
0.029
0.016
0.051
0.061
0.032
0.163
0.332
0.205
0.292
0.257
0.219
0.159
0.167
0.108

0.192
0.441
0.391
0.365
0.009
0.005
0.012
0.193
0.197
0.179
0.121
0.153
0.235
0.177
0.148
0.150

15

0.226
0.167
0.249
0.170
0.195
0.000
0.095
0.114
0.307
0.077
0.114
0.228
0.774 0.715 0.148
0.511 0.830 0.279
0.052 0.022 0.078 0.772
0.034 0.012 0.056
0.064 0.031 0.088
0.057 0.066 0.034 0.071
0.086 0.078 0.069 0.037
0.103 0.077 0.101 0.013
0.035 0.040 0.021 0.059
0.071 0.069 0.053 0.017
0.096 0.094 0.071 0.066
0.096 0.087 0.077 0.048
0.095 0.092 0.071 0.056
0.070 0.060 0.060 0.030

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

0.247
0.195
0.277
0.167
0.197
0.000
0.071
0.122
0.274
0.063
0.105
0.184
0.110
0.237

0.179
0.118
0.192
0.155
0.170
0.000
0.110
0.095
0.311
0.089
0.114
0.253
0.176
0.297

0.806
0.661
0.065
0.047
0.017
0.071
0.022
0.063
0.053
0.057
0.035

0.813
0.738
0.063
0.022
0.007
0.037
0.009
0.057
0.035
0.044
0.019

0.404
0.319
0.458
0.272
0.483
0.045
0.439
0.523
0.219
0.303
0.382
0.239
0.257
0.184
0.266
0.255
0.251
0.782
0.425
0.423
0.296
0.229
0.762
0.587
0.569
0.436

0.576
0.489
0.597
0.391
0.324
0.055
0.444
0.469
0.232
0.358
0.327
0.293
0.279
0.263
0.192
0.217
0.148
0.652
0.720

0.453
0.383
0.457
0.318
0.261
0.055
0.423
0.452
0.241
0.318
0.257
0.321
0.277
0.318
0.114
0.130
0.084
0.650

0.540
0.464
0.585
0.344
0.315
0.084
0.348
0.381
0.158
0.286
0.297
0.187
0.200
0.145
0.243
0.266
0.192
0.544

0.507
0.425
0.504
0.365
0.257
0.000
0.391
0.387
0.210
0.336
0.303
0.266
0.263
0.230
0.130
0.148
0.095
0.479

0.666
0.444
0.268
0.419
0.336
0.344
0.237

0.666
0.738
0.444
0.299
0.209
0.207
0.151

0.518
0.666
0.775
0.241
0.175
0.146
0.149

0.468
0.369
0.488
0.348
0.363
0.084
0.485
0.575
0.243
0.335
0.365
0.310
0.307
0.266
0.257
0.251
0.239
0.873
0.655
0.647
0.547
0.491
0.775
0.613
0.616
0.440

0.399
0.285
0.407
0.335
0.288
0.114
0.421
0.460
0.259
0.288
0.243
0.310
0.295
0.277
0.219
0.230
0.187
0.766
0.566
0.580
0.457
0.418
0.783
0.789

0.409
0.288
0.412
0.351
0.281
0.100
0.385
0.449
0.224
0.247
0.261
0.308
0.303
0.266
0.237
0.239
0.210
0.754
0.558
0.587
0.455
0.382
0.785

0.329
0.237
0.341
0.270
0.253
0.105
0.387
0.401
0.249
0.283
0.190
0.265
0.245
0.245
0.173
0.187
0.138
0.660
0.488
0.487
0.389
0.386
0.663

0.429
0.320
0.311
0.238

0.764 0.690
0.476 0.814

Note: The diagonal gures in bold indicate the Average Variances Extracted (AVE) for each construct. The scores in the upper diagonal are correlations. The scores in the lower diagonal are square of the correlations

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

1. CSR
2. Respect for the environment
3. Respect for consumers
4. Philanthropic activities
5. Price image
6. Introversion
7. Agreeableness
8. Congeniality
9. Seduction
10. Creativity
11. Conscientiousness
12. Sophistication
13. Originality
14. Preciousness
15. Disingenuousness
16. Deceitfulness
17. Dominance
18. Satisfaction
19. Trust
20. Credibility
21. Integrity
22. Benevolence
23. Attitude
24. Future behavioral intentions
25. Toward the store
26. Toward the store brand

639

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

Table 4
Results of structural model.
Path coefcients

t-value

Corporate social responsibility-Agreeableness

Price image-Agreeableness

0.286
0.133

5.431**
2.529*

0.122

Corporate social responsibility-Conscientiousness

Price image-Conscientiousness

0.249
0.221

4.798**
4.250**

0.144

Corporate social responsibility-Sophistication

Corporate social responsibility-Disingenuousness
Price image-Disingenuousness

0.162
0.187
0.137

3.065**
3.450**
2.530*

0.026
0.069

Agreeableness-Satisfaction
Price image-Satisfaction
Corporate social responsibility-Satisfaction
Disingenuousness-Satisfaction

0.346
0.325
0.156
0.197

7.852**
7.476**
3.426**
4.610**

0.431

Satisfaction-Trust
Corporate social responsibility-Trust
Sophistication-Trust
Introversion-Trust

0.482
0.360
0.132
0.089

12.218**
9.261**
3.592**
2.495*

0.570

Satisfaction-Attitude
Sophistication-Attitude
Corporate social responsibility-Attitude
Trust-Attitude

0.765
0.088
0.101
0.072

23.521**
3.436**
3.357**
1.969*

0.793

Attitude-Future behavioral intentions

Satisfaction-Future behavioral intentions
Sophistication-Future behavioral intentions
Conscientiousness-Future behavioral intentions

0.449
0.390
0.122
0.116

6.795**
5.939**
3.516**
3.248**

0.662

po 0.05.
p o0.01.

nn

intentions toward the retailer. Taken together, these variables

explain 66.2% of the variation of the variable future behavioral
intentions. These results therefore partly validate hypothesis H3d,
regarding the inuence of ve retailer personality traits on
consumers0 future behavioral intentions toward the retailer, and
conrm the ndings of Merrilees and Miller (2001), Zentes et al.
(2008) and Das et al. (2012).
Hypotheses H5d and H6d, which pertain to the inuence of CSR
and price image respectively on consumers0 future behavioral
intentions, are not supported by our data. In this study, CSR and
price image are not antecedents of consumers0 future behavioral
intentions. The results therefore counter the ndings of SchrammKlein and Zentes (2008), who show the inuence of three dimensions of a store0 s CSR policy on consumer loyalty to the store, and
Zielke (2006, 2010), who highlights the impact of price image on
consumers0 future behavioral intentions. The link between price
image and future behavioral intentions may be more indirect, as
suggested by Matute-Vallejo et al. (2011) for the link between
consumers0 perception of price fairness and their loyalty. Conversely, hypotheses H4d and H4e, pertaining to the inuence of
satisfaction and of attitude on consumers0 future behavioral intentions toward the retailer, are validated. Satisfaction and attitude are
determinants of consumers0 future behavioral intentions. In contrast, trust, as suggested by Lin et al. (2011) and Stanaland et al.
(2011) and postulated by hypothesis H4f, has no inuence on
consumers0 future behavioral intentions toward the retailer.
Table 5 summarizes the research hypotheses whether they
were accepted or rejected. It illustrates the direct links empirically
validated by the model proposed in this study. Table 6 illustrates
the indirect links between the variables investigated.

6. Conclusion
This study examined the inuence of the retailer0 s CSR policy
and its price image on retailer personality, along with the impact

Table 5
Summary of direct links between variables.
H1

CSR-Retailer personality

Partly validated

H2

Price image-Retailer personality

Partly validated

H3a
H3b
H3c
H3d

Retailer
Retailer
Retailer
Retailer

Partly
Partly
Partly
Partly

H4a
H4b
H4c
H4d
H4e
H4f
H5a
H5b
H5c
H5d

Satisfaction-Trust
Satisfaction-Attitude
Trust-Attitude
Satisfaction-Future behavioral intentions
Attitude-Future behavioral intentions
Trust-Future behavioral intentions
CSR-Satisfaction
CSR-Trust
CSR-Attitude
CSR-Future behavioral intentions

Validated
Validated
Validated
Validated
Validated
Not validated
Validated
Validated
Validated
Not validated

H6a
H6b
H6c
H6d

Price
Price
Price
Price

Validated
Not validated
Not validated
Not validated

personality-Satisfaction
personality-Trust
personality-Attitude
personality-Future behavioral intentions

image-Satisfaction
image-Trust
image-Attitude
image-Future behavioral intentions

validated
validated
validated
validated

of these two variables on the consequences of retailer personality:

consumers0 satisfaction, trust and loyalty toward the retailer
(measured by their attitude and future behavioral intentions). This
research primarily contributes to better understanding the formation of retailer personality. It demonstrates the inuence of
perceived retailer0 s CSR policy and price image on four (agreeableness, conscientiousness, sophistication, disingenuousness) and
three (agreeableness, conscientiousness and disingenuousness)
retailer personality traits respectively (out of ve). Only the
personality trait introversion was not inuenced by the two
variables (CSR and price image). This research thus supplements
the qualitative study realized by Brengman and Willems (2009) on
the antecedents of retailer personality. The present study has also

640

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

Table 6
Summary of indirect links between variables.
Variables explained

Indirect links established

Satisfaction

CSR: via agreeableness

CSR: via disingenuousness
Price image: via agreeableness
Price image: via disingenuousness
CSR: via sophistication
CSR: via satisfaction
CSR: via agreeableness and satisfaction
CSR: via disingenuousness and satisfaction
Price image: via satisfaction
Price image: via agreeableness and satisfaction
Price image: via disingenuousness and satisfaction
Agreeableness: via satisfaction
Disingenuousness: via satisfaction
CSR: via sophistication
CSR: via satisfaction
CSR: via agreeableness and satisfaction
CSR: via disingenuousness and satisfaction
CSR: via sophistication and trust
CSR: via satisfaction and trust
CSR: via agreeableness, satisfaction and trust
CSR: via disingenuousness, satisfaction and trust
Price image: via satisfaction
Price image: via agreeableness and satisfaction
Price image: via disingenuousness and satisfaction
Price image: via satisfaction and trust
Price image: via agreeableness, satisfaction and trust
Price image: via disingenuousness, satisfaction and trust
Agreeableness: via satisfaction
Agreeableness: via satisfaction and trust
Disingenuousness: via satisfaction
Disingenuousness: via satisfaction and trust
CSR: via sophistication
CSR: via conscientiousness
CSR: via satisfaction
CSR: via attitude
CSR: via sophistication and attitude
CSR: via agreeableness and satisfaction
CSR: via disingenuousness and satisfaction
CSR: via satisfaction and attitude
CSR: via agreeableness, satisfaction and attitude
CSR: via disingenuousness, satisfaction and attitude
CSR: via sophistication, trust and attitude
CSR: via satisfaction, trust and attitude
CSR: via agreeableness, satisfaction, trust and attitude
CSR: via disingenuousness, satisfaction, trust and attitude
Price image: via conscientiousness
Price image: via satisfaction
Price image: via agreeableness and satisfaction
Price image: via disingenuousness and satisfaction
Price image: via satisfaction and attitude
Price image: via agreeableness, satisfaction and attitude
Price image: via disingenuousness, satisfaction and attitude
Price image: via satisfaction, trust and attitude
Price image: via agreeableness, satisfaction, trust and attitude
Price image: via disingenuousness, satisfaction, trust and attitude
Agreeableness: via satisfaction
Agreeableness: via satisfaction and attitude
Agreeableness: via satisfaction, trust and attitude
Sophistication: via attitude
Disingenuousness: via satisfaction
Disingenuousness: via satisfaction and attitude
Disingenuousness: via satisfaction, trust and attitude
Satisfaction: via attitude
Trust: via attitude

Trust

Attitude

Future behavioral intentions

shown direct and indirect links between retailer personality and

the consequences of this concept (satisfaction, trust and loyalty,
measured by attitude and future behavioral intentions) and
between CSR and price image and its consequences.
From a managerial standpoint, the implications for managers
are that their retailer personality, their CSR policy and their price
image play a role in forming and managing consumer relations.

The results can help them identify paths available to build,

improve or reinforce their consumers0 satisfaction, trust and
loyalty via the way consumers perceive the retailer0 s personality.
Retailer personality is in turn inuenced by perceived CSR policy
and price image. This study has also shown that the retailer0 s CSR
policy directly affects consumers0 relationship with the retailer
via their attitude and levels of satisfaction and trust in the retailer.

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

The impact of retailer0 s CSR policy on consumers0 future behavioral

intentions is rather indirect, via satisfaction, trust and attitude.
This conrms that there are different steps before the CSR policy
put forth by a retailer can inuence the behavioral facet of
consumer loyalty. CSR is a mechanism that gradually creates a
deeper relationship between consumers and the retailer as consumers increasingly identify with the store (Marin et al., 2009).
The importance of CSR and its relational impact over time has
been underlined by Lacey and Kennett-Hensel (2010). This study
has also demonstrated that the retailer0 s price image has a direct
impact on consumer satisfaction. It thus corroborates the scant
existing research (Zielke, 2006, 2010) on the consequences of
price image.
This research nonetheless has limitations that represent avenues of future research. First, the use of a convenience sample,
even if it increases the internal validity of this natural experiment,
demands prudence regarding the external validity of the research
results. Consequently, this natural experiment could be reproduced over a more diversied sample of consumers. In addition,
only one food distribution retailer was studied, which limits the
generalizability of the results obtained. Future research should
consider other food retailers or non-food retailers. Similarly, other
antecedents of retailer personality could be considered to better
understand how retailer personality is formed, and thus validate
the results of Brengman and Willems (2009) issuing from an
exploratory qualitative study. Another limitation of the research is
that this natural experiment was conducted in a store laboratory
rather than in a real store. Participants formed their evaluation of
the retailer (notably CSR image and price image) on only two
simulated shopping trips and a single communication mode for
the retailer0 s CSR policy (posters hung in the store laboratory). To
extend the research, studies could be conducted in actual stores to
supplement the approach used in this rst natural experiment
(posters) with other media onsite (e.g. information booklets or
activities in the store) and thus provide proof of the retailer0 s CSR
commitments. It is important that consumers be able to evaluate
the concrete actions conducted by companies in line with their
CSR policy (Mohr and Webb, 2005).
References
Aaker, J.L., 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Market. Res. 34 (3), 347356.
Achenbaum, A., Bogda, P., 1997. Retailers have reclaimed brand leadership.
Brandweek 38 (32), 16.
Ailawadi, K.L., Keller, K.L., 2004. Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights
and research priorities. J. Retail. 80 (4), 331342.
Ambroise, L., Valette-Florence, P., 2010. The brand personality metaphor and interproduct stability of a specic barometer. Rech. Appl. Market. 25 (2), 328.
Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U., 2007. Are the Retailer Motives of Private Label Brands
Fullled?: Creation of Brand Value, Brand Loyalty and the Effect on Store Image
and Store Loyalty, Working Paper Series. Lund Institute of Economic Research,
Lund University.
Aurier, P., N0 Goala, G., 2010. The differing and mediating roles of trust and
relationship commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 38 (3), 303325.
Azoulay, A., Kapferer, J-N., 2003. Do brand personality scales really measure brand
personality? J. Brand Manag. 11 (2), 143155.
Ben Sliman, S., Ferrandi, J-M., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P, 2005. L0 inuence de
la personnalit de la marque sur le comportement du consommateur: modlisation et application de grandes enseignes d0 hypermarchs en France et en
Tunisie. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Colloquium of the Tunisian Association of
Marketing. Hammamet, Tunisia, CD-ROM.
Berger, I.E., Alwitt, L.F., 1996. Attitude conviction: a self-reective measure of
attitude strength. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 11 (3), 557572.
Binninger, A.-S., 2010. Les modes d0 action des enseignes traditionnelles en matire
de dveloppement durable. In: Lavorata, L. (Ed.), 50 ches sur le marketing
durable. Bral, Paris, pp. 170173.
Brengman, M., Willems, K., 2009. Determinants of fashion store personality: a
consumer perspective. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 18 (5), 346355.
Buttle, F., Burton, J., 2002. Does service failure inuence customer loyalty? J.
Consum. Behav. 1 (3), 217227.
Carroll, A.B., 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 4 (4), 497505.

641

Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., Tencati, A., 2009. The missing link between
corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: the case of fair trade
products. J. Bus. Ethics 84 (1), 115.
Das, G., Datta, B., Guin, K.K., 2012. Impact of retailer personality on consumer-based
retailer equity: an empirical study of retail brands. Asia Pac. J. Market. Logist. 24
(4), 619639.
d0 Astous, A., Lvesque, M., 2003. A scale for measuring store personality. Psychol.
Market. 20 (5), 455469.
Davison, A.C., Hinkley, D.V., 1997. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J., 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman Hall,
New York.
Ekinci, Y., Dawes, P.L., Massey, G.R., 2008. An extended model of the antecedents
and consequences of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services. Eur. J.
Market. 42 (1/2), 3568.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T., 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of
anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114 (4), 864886.
Fady, A., Fastr, M., Coutelle, P., 2008. La politique de prix dans le commerce.
Vuibert, Paris.
Ferrandi, J.-M., Valette-Florence, P., 2002. Premiers test et validation de la
transposition d0 une chelle de personnalit humaine aux marques. Rec. Appl.
Market. 17 (3), 2140.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addisson-Wesley, Reading, Mass..
Fleck, N., Nabec, L., 2010. L0 enseigne: un capital pour le distributeur. Rev. Manag.
Ave. 38, 1432.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 3950.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 (4), 343373.
Freling, T., Forbes, L., 2005. An examination of brand personality through methodological triangulation. J. Brand Manag. 13 (2), 148162.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., De Wulf, K., 2009. A new measure of brand personality. Int.
J. Res. Market. 26 (2), 97107.
Gouteron, J., 2006. L0 impact de la personnalit de la marque sur la relation marqueconsommateur, application au march du prt--porter fminin. Rev. Fr.
Market. 207 (2/5), 4359.
Gupta, S., Pirsch, J., 2008. The inuence of a retailer0 s corporate social responsibility
on re-conceptualizing store image. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 15 (6), 516526.
Gurviez, P., Korchia, M., 2002. Proposition d0 une chelle de mesure multidimensionnelle de la conance dans la marque. Rech. Appl. Market. 17 (3), 4159.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139151.
Hallowell, R., 1996. The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and
protability: an empirical study. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 7 (4), 2742.
Helgeson, J.G., Supphellen, M., 2004. A conceptual and measurement comparison of
self-congruity and brand personality. Int. J. Market. Res. 46 (2), 205233.
Henderson, T.A., Mihas, E.A., 2000. Building retail brands. McKinsey Q. 3, 110117.
Henseler, J., Chin, W.W., 2010. A comparison of approaches for the analysis of
interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path
modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 17 (1), 82109.
Herault, S., 2012. Responsabilit sociale de l0 entreprise et publicit. RIMHE, Rev.
Interdiscip. Manag. Humanisme 1, 718.
Iyer, G., Evanschitzky, H., 2006. Dimensions of satisfaction in retail settings. In:
Proceedings of the 35th EMAC Colloquium. Athens, Greece, CD-ROM.
Jacoby, J., Kyner, D.B., 1973. Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. J. Market.
Res. 10 (1), 19.
Jreskog, K., 1971. Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika 36,
109133.
Lacey, R., Kennett-Hensel, P.A., 2010. Longitudinal effects of corporate social
responsibility on customer relationships. J. Bus. Ethics 97 (4), 581597.
Lin, C.-P., Chen, S.-C., Chin, C.-K., Lee, W.-Y., 2011. Understanding purchase intention
during product-harm crises: moderating effects of perceived corporate ability
and corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 102 (3), 455471.
Lombart, C., Louis, D., 2012a. La personnalit de l0 enseigne: un outil de marketing
relationnel. Rev. Manag. Ave. 51 (1), 1541.
Lombart, C., Louis, D., 2012b. Consumer satisfaction and loyalty: two main
consequences of retailer personality. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19 (6), 644652.
Luo, X., Bhattacharya, C.B., 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. J. Market. 70 (4), 118.
Lymperopoulos, C., Chaniotakis, I.E., 2008. Price satisfaction and personnel efciency as antecedents of overall satisfaction from consumer credit products and
positive word of mouth. J. Financ. Serv. Market. 13 (1), 6371.
Magin, S., Algesheimer, R., Huber, F., Herrmann, A., 2003. The impact of brand
personality and customer satisfaction on customer0 s loyalty: theoretical
approach and ndings of a causal analytical study in the sector of Internet
service providers. Electron. Markets 13 (4), 294308.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S., Rubio, A., 2009. The role of identity salience in the effects of
corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 84 (1),
6578.
Matute-Vallejo, J., Bravo, R., Pina, J.M., 2011. The inuence of corporate
social responsibility and price fairness on customer behaviour: evidence
from the nancial sector. Corporate Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 18 (6),
317331.

642

C. Lombart, D. Louis / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 630642

Merrilees, B., Miller, D., 2001. Antecedents of brand-personality in Australian

retailing: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the ANZMAC Conference.
Auckland, New Zealand, CD-ROM.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J., 2005. The effects of corporate social responsibility and price
on consumer responses. J. Consum. Aff. 39 (1), 121147.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J., Harris, K.E., 2001. Do consumers expect companies to be
socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying
behavior. J. Consum. Aff. 35 (1), 4572.
Ngobo, P.-V., Jean, S., 2012. Does store image inuence demand for organic store
brands? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19 (6), 621628.
Ngobo, P.-V., Pantin-Sohier, G., 2009. Effets des actions marketing sur l0 image prix
d0 un magasin. In: Proceedings of the 25th Congrs de l0 Association Franaise du
Marketing. Londres, Angleterre, CD-ROM.
Okazaki, S., Katsukura, A., Nishiyama, M., 2007. How mobile advertising works: the
role of trust in improving attitudes and recall. J. Advert. Res. 47 (2), 165178.
Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. J. Market. Res. 17 (4), 460469.
Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGrawHill International Editions, New York.
Oliver, R.L., Linda, G., 1981. Effect of satisfaction and its antecedents on consumer
preference and intention. Adv. Consum. Res. 8, 8893.
Pivato, S., Misani, N., Tencati, A., 2008. The impact of corporate social responsibility
on consumer trust: the case of organic food. Bus. Ethics: Eur. Rev. 17 (1), 312.
Rodrigues, P., Real, E., Vitorino, F., Cantista, I., 2011. The importance of corporate
social responsibility in the brand image. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Marketing Trends Congress. Paris, France, CD-ROM.
Rowley, T., Berman, S., 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance.
Bus. Soc. 39 (4), 397418.
Schramm-Klein, H., Zentes, J., 2008. Corporate social responsibility of retail
companies: is it relevant for consumers0 purchasing behavior?, In: Proceedings
of the 11th Colloque Etienne Thil. La Rochelle, France, CD-ROM.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. J. Market. Res. 38 (2), 225243.
Soyoung, K., Byoungho, Jin, 2001. An evaluation of the retail service quality scale for
U.S. and Korean customers of discount stores. Adv. Consum. Res. 28, 169176.

Spears, N., Singh, N., 2004. Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 26 (2), 5366.
Stan, V., Calciu, M., Jakobowicz, E., 2007. Les construits qui affectent la dlit des
clients envers un point de vente. Une application managriale des modles
d0 quations structurelles, In: Proceedings of 6th International Congress Marketing Trends. Paris, France, CD-ROM.
Stanaland, A.J.S., Lwin, M.O., Murphy, P.E., 2011. Consumer perceptions of the
antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics
102 (1), 4755.
Swaen, V., Chumpitaz, R.C., 2008. L0 impact de la responsabilit socitale de
l0 entreprise sur la conance des consommateurs. Rech. Appl. Market. 23 (4),
735.
Taylor, S.A., Baker, T.L., 1994. An assessment of the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers0 purchase
intentions. J. Retail. 70 (2), 163178.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.M., Lauro, C., 2005. PLS path modeling.
Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 48 (1), 159205.
Tian, Z., Wang, R., Yang, W., 2011. Consumer responses to corporate social
responsibility (CSR) in China. J. Bus. Ethics 101 (2), 197212.
Varki, S., Colgate, M., 2001. The role of price perception in an integrated model of
behavioral intention. J. Serv. Res. 3 (3), 232241.
Voss, G.B., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., 1998. The roles of price, performance, and
expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges. J. Market. 62 (4),
4661.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C.K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Jia-Hong, G., Cacioppo, J.T.,
2010. Making sense by making sentient: effectance motivation increases
anthropomorphism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 99 (3), 410435.
Zentes, J., Morschett, D, Schramm-Klein, H., 2008. Brand personality of retailers
an analysis of its applicability and its effect on store loyalty. Int. Rev. Retail,
Distrib. Consum. Res. 18 (2), 167184.
Zielke, S., 2006. Measurement of retailers0 price images with a multiple-item scale.
Int. Rev. Retail, Distrib. Consum. Res. 16 (3), 297316.
Zielke, S., 2008. Exploring asymmetric effects in the formation of retail price
satisfaction. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 15 (5), 335347.
Zielke, S., 2010. How price image dimensions inuence shopping intentions for
different store formats. Eur. J. Market. 44 (6), 748770.